Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Kai Lohrasp and Nebuchadrezzar"

See other formats








WIEN, 1904. 





_ » ^ m. ™ UE .r>w a*t*t r^r-o^.^r, LEMCKE A BUECHNER 



Digitized by LjOOQ IC 

Intialt des achtzehnten Bandes. 

A r t i k e 1. 


Beitrage zur Kenntnis altarabischer Dichter, von R. Geykk 1 

- Eine atbiopiscbe Zaubergebetrolle im Museum der Stadt Wels, von N. Rho- 


Literary Studies on the Sanskrit Novel, by Louis H. Gray 39 

— ' Der Ursprung des indischen Dramas und Epos, von Johannes Hebtel ... 59 

Die elamiscbe Iteration, von Georg Husing 84 

Nocb einmal die Wortfolge bei gammurabi und die sumerische Frage, von 

D. H. Muller 91 

Der Gebrauch der Modi in den Gesetzen ^ammurabis, von D. H. Muller . 97 

— Der Ursprung des indischen Dramas und Epos, von Johannes Hertel (SchluB) 137 

Erinnerungen aus dem Orient, von August Haffner 169 

Zur Artharvavedalitteratur, von W. C aland 185 

Die Kohler-Peisersche Hammurabi-Dbersetzung, von Dr. M. Schorr .... 208 

Revanaradbyas Smaratattvaprakaiika, von Richard Schmidt 261 

Beitrage zur persischen Lexikographie, von R. v. Staceelberg 280 

• — Kai Lohrasp and Nebuchadrezzar, by Louis H. Gray 291 

Ein indischer Hochzeitsbrauch, von Theodor Zachariae ... - 299 

Studien zu den 'Asma'ijjjiU, von J. Barth 4 307 

Proben der mongolischen Umgangssprache, von Wilhelm Grube 343 

Die Provincia Arabia von R. E. Brunnow, A. v. Domaszewski und J. Euting, 

von Alois Mu8il 379 


K. VoIjLMUS, T>ie Gedichte des Mutalammis, von M. J. de Goeje 101 

p n Dav. Heinb. Muller, Die Gesetze Hammurabis und ihr Verhaltnis zur mosai- 

gchen Gesetzgebung, sowie zu den XII Tafeln, von Dr. Johannes Jeremias 107 

Digitized by LjOOQ IC 

Kai Lohrasp and Nebuchadrezzar. 


Louis H. Gray. 

The history of Nebuchadrezzar II., who ruled from 604 to 
561 B.C., is wrapped in much obscurity. His own inscriptions (see 
Wincklbr in Schradbr, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek m, 2, 10 — 71) 
give, somewhat strangely, no information whatsoever concerning his 
military expeditions. It is well known, however, that about 600 B. C. 
Jehoiakim, king of Judah, revolted against the Babylonians, and that 
Nebuchadrezzar marched against Jerusalem, captured it, and carried 
Jehoiachin, the son and successor of Jehoiakim, captive to Babylon 
together with a large number of Jews (597 B.C.). A few years later, 
Zedekiah, an uncle of Jehoiachin, revolted in his turn against Nebu- 
chadrezzar who had set him on the throne of Judah. Once more 
the king of Babylon attacked Jerusalem and this time destroyed it. 
Zedekiah's sons were slain, he himself was blinded and imprisoned 
in Babylon, and the kingdom of Judah thus came to an end in 586 
(see II. Kings, xxiv. — xxv.). To the Biblical account as here sum- 
marized Josephus and the classical writers add little of value re- 
garding Nebuchadrezzar's expeditions against Jerusalem. In the 
Pahlavi literature, on the other hand, there is an item of interest 
in this connection which may have an actual historic basis. 

The Dind-i Mainogi Xirat, a work of uncertain date, but prob- 
ably written before the Arabic conquest of Persia (West, SBE., 
xxiv. introd. 16 — 17), contains the following words in the Pahlavi 

Digitized by VjOOQiC 

292 Louis H. Gray. 

version (xxvu. 64 — 67, ed. Sanjana, 47; the passage is lacking, 
however, in the Pazand and Sanskrit translations, ed. West, 33, 94): 
va min Kal-Lohrdspo sutd dena yehvUnt, alyah xutdyih xup karto 
va den yazddnd sipdsddr yehvunt, va AurUalam-i Yehutdnd bara 
xefrunt va Yehfttand vaSuftd va pargandak kartd, va din-patiraftnr 
Kai-ViStdspd min tand-i dena barehinit, ,And the advantage from 
Kal-Lohrasp was this, that dominion was well exercised by him, 
and he became a thanksgiver unto the sacred beings. He demol- 
ished the Jerusalem of the Jews, and made the Jews dispersed and 
scattered; and the accepter of the religion, Kal-Vi§tftsp, was produced 
from his body' (tr. West, SBE. xxiv., 64 — 65). A similar statement 
occurs in the Dlnkart (v. I, 3 — 4, ed. Sanjana, 476, West, Grund- 
riss der iranischen Philologie, u. 93): madam sarddrlh-i agartd hamkun 
mun vazluntd zyaSdnd nlydkdn pavan sipdh sarddrihi hamddstig, 
vispdxyaklh-l zag ram den sipdh-patih-l Buxt-Narsih. 1 madam akdri- 
nltand-i awarunb-ddtlh va vat-kuni$nih-i bandag sav&sar, va giran 
teddy aiaklh va zlydn-l aj&dn, pavan Sedruninitag dahyupatd Kai- 
Lohardspo min Airdn Satro, levata Buxt-NarSlh, vol Ai*um Bitd- 
Makdis? va zag kustakb mdni&nd, , About the unswerving and co- 
operating chieftainship of those forefathers who went in mutually- 
friendly command of troops, the complete enclosure of that tribe 
within the military control of Buxt-Narslh. About the disabling of 
vicious habits and evil deeds which are entirely connected, and of 
the heinous demon-worship and mischief which are owing to them, 
through the ruler Kal-Loharasp being sent, with Bdxt-Narslb, from 
the country of Iran to Beta-Makdis of Arum, and their remaining 
in that quarter* (tr. West, GIPh. n. 93, SBE,, xlvn. 120—121; see 
also Sanjana's translation, 611 — 612). 

The Iranian material concerning L oh rasp is scanty. In the 
Avesta his name occurs but once (Yasht, v. 105) in the prayer of 

1 Ar. ^ C~±-?, but Syr. Vf** 03 ' 

* Jerusalem, Ar. ^, r Ja t W CXo it can scarcely denote the Temple, Hebr. 
rnpjtfrO n»a, Syr. V^r^ 10 **°* 

Digitized by LjOOQ LC 

Kai Lohrasp and Nebuchadrezzar. 293 

ya&a azdm hdtayene 

pubrvnx yat aurvat-aspahe 

taxmdm kavaem vlstdsprm 

anumafde daenay&i, 
,That I may bring the son of Aurvataspa, the valiant kingly 
Vishtaspa, to think according to the Religion/ The Pahlavi refer- 
ences, except those just cited, state merely the genealogy of Lohrasp 
and the fact that he ruled one hundred and twenty years (Bunda- 
hiin xxxi. 28 — 29; xxxiv. 7, Pazend Jdmdspl-Ndmak iv. ed. Modi, 
71,116), this number apparently referring to a brief dynasty, as in 
the case of the similar length of reign ascribed to his son Vishtaspa 
(West, SBE. xlvii. introd. 38). The Shah-Namah has no details of 
importance concerning this monarch, its account of the reign of 
Lohrasp being devoted for the most part to the adventures of his 
son Gushtasp (Vishtaspa) while still a prince (Sdh-Ndmah, ed. 
VtLLRRs-LANDAUER, 1431 — 1497, 1656 — 1559; Monx, Livre des Rois, 
nr. 206— 286, 359 — 367; Pizzi, Libro dei Re, iv. 539 — 557, v. 1—81, 

The seat of Lohrasp'3 capital is placed both by Firdausi and 
by the Arabic historians in Balkh (Jackson, Zoroaster, 208 — 210), 
which Yaqut (died 1229), ed. WCstenfeld, 713, declares was founded 
by this monarch ,after his companion Bufct Nas§ar had destroyed 
Jerusalem' (^^jLJI C~o ^*3 vJUs^ a^L© <~>j&- O, cf., however, 
Marquart, Erdnsahr, 89). The Iranian tradition of the association 
of Lohrasp and Nebuchadrezzar in the expedition against Jerusalem 
is given in detail by Tabari (838 — 923), whose account is as follows 
(Persian version of Bel f ami, tr. Zotenberg, i. 491 — 492; cf. also 
Hamza of Isfahan, tr. Gottwaldt, 25 — 26 ; Albiruni, Chronology of 
Ancient Nations, tr. Sachau, 112): ,11 [Lohrasp] avait leve* une grande 
annee, et il nourissait les plus braves entre eux. II envoyait Nabucho- 
donosor dans Tlraq, en lui disant: La Syrie, l'lraq, l'Y^men, et tout 
l'Onest, jusqu'aux frontieres de Roum, t'appartiennent. Moi, je veux 
Tester a Balkh pour surveiller les Turcs. Nabuchodonosor partit avec 
one nombreuse arm^e de Balkh, arriva au bord du Tigris, et de Ik 

Wiener Zeitecbr. f. d. Kunde d. Morgenl. XVIII. B<1. 21 

Digitized by VjOOQ|_€ 

294 Louis H. Gray. 

il se tourna vers Touest, entra en Syrie et arriva a Damas. II fit 
la paix avec les inhabitants de Damas, occupa la ville et envoys 
un g^n^ral avec an corps d'arm^e k Jerusalem. II y avait Ik un 
roi, descendant de David le proph&te, qui conclut la paix avec le 
g^niral de Nabuchodonosor. Celui-ci occupa la ville, prit des otages, 
des grands du peuple, et se retira'. On the outbreak of the rebellion 
of Zedekiah, ,Nabuchodonosor avec son arm^e partit de Damas pour 
Jerusalem, prit la ville d'assaut, massacra tous les inhabitants males 
et fit prisonnier les femmes et les enfants/ According to the same 
author, Nebuchadrezzar acted as the lieutenant of Lohrasp in the 
Egyptian campaign of 567 B. C, a statement which is repeated by 
Qalqashandi (died 1418) in his geography of Egypt (tr. WOstbnfeld, 
Abhandl. Gott. Ges. d. W. 1879, 123). 

The passages already cited are the only ones of importance in 
Oriental writings regarding the association of Nebuchadrezzar and 
Lohrasp. For further references to the Iranian monarch it will be 
sufficient to refer to Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 41. 

The problem now presents itself whether this alliance is historic 
or fictitious. The only study on this subject of which I am aware 
is that by Darmbstbtbr, Revue des Etudes juives, xix. 53 — 56. He 
rejects the story altogether, giving an explanation which seems to 
me utterly fantastic and incredible, while Jackson, Zoroaster, 91, 209, 
merely alludes to the legend without discussing it. Yet so per- 
sistent is the tradition 1 that the presumption seems to be in favor 
of its historicity, at least in part. It is at all events tolerably cer- 
tain that Nebuchadrezzar had Iranian allies from Media whether 
Bactrians served under his banner or not. We know from a frag- 
ment of Abydenus, who probably flourished during the period of the 
Antonines, preserved in the Armenian translation of Eusebius that 
Nabopolassar had married his son Nebuchadrezzar to a Median prin 

1 A somewhat analogous case of the persistency of Oriental tradition is the 
romance of Zariadres and Odatis, first related by Chares of Mytilene, a courtier of 
Alexander the Great, and recurring in Firdausi's account of the loves of Gush Us p 
(Vishtaspa) and Ketayuna, princess of Greece (see Rohdk, GriechUcher Roman 9 , 47 — 54). 

Digitized by LjOOQIC 

Kai Lohrasp and Nebuchadrezzar. 295 

cess named Amytis (Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 15; GIPh. 11. 413). 
The passage in question runs as follows (ed. Aucher, i. 22): \f- ,/*«» 

IIih/m^i«i Y\»$tMnjMitt»Mtuj$Mtnt§nm f^-uta.$att-nn& gtta %.l\ % i*$nnj;uiai.nnk* utifii flu*. 11*" 
m*mjmpm~mg turn. 1 h-noMt^utL 11 tun tun u$u^u»ustrut u. %uthtusm$up aonu loaHltUfhuiu- 
m*.&fn% f amn5iMt-M it/Of "P "-*-'!/ fit-mtiLtF^i-uinnt-Lnn-mnuuniuj mn.i9t.uanH Jh l 1 h-n.iw^iuLiuj 

tf/.^ufu, ,And after Samyges, SardanapaBos reigned over the 
Chaldaeans twenty-one years. He sent an army to aid Azdahak, 1 
the prince and lord of the Medes, to receive as wife for his son 
Nabnkodrossor the daughter of A2dahak, Amuhean/ Still more im- 
portant in this connection is the statement of Alexander Polyhistor 
(flourished 105 — 40 B. C), De Judceis, frag. 24 (preserved by 
Ensebius, Praep. Evang. ix. 39, 4 — 5) that Nebuchadrezzar was aided 
in his expedition against Zedekiah by a contingent of Medes sent 
by their monarch Astibaras. This passage, which rests upon the 
authority of Eupoleraus, an author of the second century B. C, and 
seems to be historical in character, is as follows: tov 3s ~d>v Ba#uXu>- 
vtwv faziXia oxousavTa Na$oo*/o5ov6cop ta uxb tou 'iepejjitou 2 xpcjAavTeuOsvia 
"2pxutXs?at 'Ac-'.^fltp^v tov MyJBwv f^aaXea GuarpaTSu&iv afow, xapaXa^orra 
Ik B^uXcovfey? xal Mti^ou;, xal auvorYavovia tc£^gW pi£v <5xT(i)y.a(Sc/.a, faxecov 
& pp:ica; Bwosxa, xat i:£^d)v 5p|xaia jrjpta, xtX. 3 It seems probable, 
therefore, that Iranian generals were among the .servants of Nebu- 
chadrezzar' (-0*01333 n3r) who besieged Jerusalem, and the Median 
ruler may well have been present likewise, especially as King Jehoia- 
kim is termed Nebuchadrezzar's ,servant* (is?) during the three years 
of his enforced allegiance to Babylon (//. Kings, xxiv. l). It is, 
moreover, barely possible that a reminiscence of the Iranian allies 
of Nebuchadrezzar lingers in the romance of Judith, which speaks 
of the Persians and Medes as having been overcome by her, esptcav 
fti$~v. tt,v loXjxav ocjzrfa xal MrjSo; to Opaso; a\jvr t q Ippa/Orjaav (Judith, 
xvi. 10). To this passage, however, little importance can be attached. 

1 'AjTvarprjs, Hubschmanh, Armenische Grammatik, i. 33, Justi, Iranisches Namen- 
hth, 47—48. 

' The imprisonment of Jeremiah by Zedekiah, Jer. xxxvm. 
* For farther references to Astibaras see Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 42. 


Digitized by LjOOQIC 

296 Louis H. Gray. 

It is, nevertheless, plain that the classical writers who base 
their statements on Jewish tradition agree with the Iranian records 
in assigning Iranian allies to Nebuchadrezzar in his expedition against 
Jerusalem. While, moreover, it is possible that the two campaigns 
against Jehoiakim and Zedekiah respectively may have become con- 
fused in the course of time, the allusions of Eupolemus to Jeremiah 
and of the Dina-i MalnOgl Xirat to the destruction of Jerusalem both 
seem to refer distinctly to the second expedition and not to the 
first. The only discrepancy, then, between the classical and the Ira- 
nian accounts is the fact that the former name only the Medes and 
the latter only the Bactrians. 

For this divergency three explanations may be offered: either 
Nebuchadrezzar's army included both Medes and Bactrians; or the 
Bactrians were substituted for the Medes in the Pahlavi accounts, 
so that the force contained no Bactrians; or Bactrians and Medes 
here denote one and the same people. 

The first hypothesis is simple but improbable, for we should 
expect to find both peoples mentioned, at least in the Greek sources, 
which frequently allude to the two nations. Thus Bactrians and 
Medes served in the armies of Darius and Xerxes in their expedi- 
tions against Greece (Herodotus in. 92, vn. 62 — 64, 86), while the 
romance of the Cyropcedia, iv. 56, mentions the two peoples as form- 
ing part of the troops of Cyrus the Great. It is possible, however, 
that Eupolemus, who doubtless based his account on Jewish sources 
which mention the Medes but not the Bactrians, may have omitted 
them through over- fidelity to his authorities. The fact that the 
Pahlavi texts do not name the Medes in the account of the ex- 
pedition against Jerusalem is consonant with the entire Avesta and 
Pahlavi literatures, in which there is no certain mention of the 
Median nation. 

This leads to the second hypothesis that the Bactrians were 
substituted for the Medes in the Iranian accounts. Whether this is 
due to accident or design is a difficult problem, but it would seem that 
there is here a close analogy with the entire omission from the Avesta, 

Digitized by 


Kai Lohrasp and Nebuchadrezzar. 297 

Pahlavi, and the Shah-Namah of the dynasty of the Achaemenians. 
In the latter case a plausible suggestion has been made by Desai, 
Cama Memorial Volume, 29 — 39, who reaches the conclusion that 
this line of Persian kings had been entirely forgotten by the time 
of the composition of the Pahlavi writings during the Sassanid period. 
Without passing judgment on this view, which is, at all events, 
possible, it might likewise be assumed that the Median kingdom also 
had passed into oblivion in the course of time. On the other hand, 
it must be borne in mind that Bactria was the centre of Zoroastrian 
orthodoxy, although the founder of the religion himself apparently 
came from the region of Media. Between the two sections of country, 
consequently, there was probably considerable religious antagonism, 
Bactria regarding Media as indifferent to the faith. If we add to 
the natural tendency of orthodoxy to exalt itself at the expense of 
heterodoxy the equally natural Oriental inclination toward self-glori- 
fication, it would seem almost inevitable that Bactria should be sub- 
stituted for Media, and that Lohrasp, the father of the Vishtaspa 
who had first protected the prophet Zoroaster, should be the ally of 
Nebuchadrezzar instead of the obscure, perhaps already forgotten, 
Median king Astibaras. According to such a theory the substitution 
may have been either intentional, unintentional, or a mixture of 
the two. 

The most plausible hypothesis, however, seems to be the third: 
that the Medes of Eupolemus and the Bactrians of the Dlna-l 
Maftiog-i Xirat and the Dinkart really denote one and the same 
people. It has already been observed that both classical and Pahlavi 
sources agree in attributing Iranian allies to Nebuchadrezzar in his 
expedition against Zedekiah. Since, then, the Jewish sources whence 
Eupolemus and Alexander Polyhistor drew never mention the Bac- 
trians, while the Pahlavi texts totally ignore the Medes, it would 
seem that they roughly assigned the names of the Iranian peoples 
*ith whom they were most familiar to the allies of the Babylonian 
ting. The people in question were at all events a northern race, 
for the Persians are rather significantly ignored in the Greek sources, 

Digitized by VjOOQlC 

298 Louis H. Gray. Kai Lohrasp and Nebuchadrezzar. 

which, like the Hebrew, were thoroughly acquainted with them. On 
the whole, it seems to be most probable that at least the majority 
of these allies were Medes, as being nearer Nebuchadrezzar's capital, 
although it is very possible that under the Medes of Eupolemus 
and the Bactrians of the Pahlavi texts individuals or detachments 
of several Iranian peoples, including perhaps Hyrcanians, Parthians, 
Margians, and Arians, may have been comprised. 

While the sources are meager, and in part contradictory, con- 
cerning the Iranian allies of Nebuchadrezzar in his destruction of 
Jerusalem, I believe the evidence is in favor of the historicity of the 
statements of the Pahlavi texts in so far as the Babylonian king 
seems to have had under his command troops from northern Iran. 

Newark, New Jersey. June 11, 1904. 

Digitized by VjOOQ|_€